Police

[Ghostrider]

It is well documented that Shetland has a higher detection rate than any other area in the Force. It would, therefore, seem that, rather than victims losing out, or the community declining to assist us, the reverse could be held to be the case.

 

Ahhhh....those damn statistics again.

 

May I refer you to your own tag line on this one. You have presented a conclusion without adequate supporting facts to back it up. Certainly when presented in the right way on paper Shetland has a high detection rate, and you may be right is presuming that that is in part due to public cooperation.

 

However, that is just one segment of the entire picture, can you deny that as Shetland is a low reported crime area and as the vast majority of reported crimes are petty in nature, that there's not a lot of crime to be solved and what is is relatively easily solved. Can you deny that a relatively significant proportion of reoprted local crime is perpetrated by individuals who either make no attempt to cover their trail, or are too stupid to try to. How can you, from the inside looking out, know what proportion of the entire Shetland community form the micro community who willingly assist the force and report incidents, and what proportion form the micro community who neither assist or report?

 

I would argue, that from personal experience (although, granted the company I keep may well skew the figures somewhat) that the size of the micro community in Shetland who neither assist nor report is a somewhat alarming percentage of the overall Shetland population.

[EM]

Please don't believe everything you see as fact. As some think that the government bends everything to there view. so does everyone with a point to get over.

That is a very telling line. I would also contend that it is quite wrong. For myself I do not feel I bend issues to support any particular stance. I am sure others would also be offended by your sweeping statement, and I can think of people far too principled to even contemplate spinning information.

 

Having said that, the fact that you make the statement tells us one thing for sure. Since you believe everyone is bending things to their view, you are admitting that you clearly do this routinely. Interesting.

[crofter]

Im sure the rioters in a lot of cases were covering there faces. Why?

 

My guess is that they knew they were acting improperly and did not want to be identified.

 

 

I note that the views all seem to be police evil rioters nice.

 

That is not my view.

 

I just hope you never have a need to be protected from the thugs.

 

I try to keep clear of masked policemen.

[crofter]

In such circumstances, each officer bears a unique designation by which they may be identified, other than epaulettes. This was the case with each officer involved in the protests.

 

Can you elaborate?

[crofter]

Post script

 

No officer was "wearing a scarf". Officers with specific training and duties regarding certain public order situations are routinely issued with - and expected to wear - protective facegear, worn under their helmets. This is a flame-retardant material, which leaves the eyes uncovered - other than by the helmet visor - however it protects the nose and mouth from inhaling flame, or being exposed to excessive heat. Rioters have been known, on occasion, to offer up what used to be referred to as "Molotov Cocktails" to front line officers in such situations. Police, therefore, responded by issuing such flame-retardant apparel, which I, myself, have been known to cut a dash in, on occasion.

 

While less than comfortable, it is, sadly, sometimes necessary.

 

Your humble servant.

 

They were not being petrol bombed. His colleagues are not wearing their facegear. Why wear an uncomfortable piece of equipment if there is no need to? The only reason I can see for hiding his face, (and wearing a possibly "borrowed" jacket with no numbers on the shoulders) is because he did not want to be identifiable.

[paulb]

they were having fireworks fired at them. if facing a riot i would want fireproof clothing. those who have had burns would not fancy being covered in flaming petrol.

When I said every one bends there argument to suit there needs i was of course not referring to shetlinkers. I was just arguing that all reports are biased and that you need to treat them carefully.

The purpose of the kettle is to control and contain and to identify offenders. If your involved in a demo that gets out of hand then you hand better get out of there quickly. The same reasoning was in giving people time to disperse after the riot act was read.

I still feel that some modern law similar to the warning given to rioters in the past would be a positive move. If your still there after the time is up then your out for trouble and then what happens is your own fault.

[crofter]

would not fancy being covered in flaming petrol.

 

Where was the flaming petrol?

 

 

all reports are biased

 

Including your posts.

 

And indeed the initial statements issued by the police before the video evidence came to light.

[Evil Inky]

The purpose of the kettle is to control and contain and to identify offenders. If your involved in a demo that gets out of hand then you hand better get out of there quickly. The same reasoning was in giving people time to disperse after the riot act was read.

I still feel that some modern law similar to the warning given to rioters in the past would be a positive move. If your still there after the time is up then your out for trouble and then what happens is your own fault.

But the police prevented anybody from leaving the kettle for several hours - people were begging the police to let them out and were refused. How can people disperse if the police won't let them ?

[crofter]

identify offenders.

 

How can you identify offenders if they cover their face and remove their shoulder tags before offending? Fair enough, the guy has now come forward, but if Mr Tomlinson had not died, or if the American fund manager had not made a video of the assault he would have got away with acting in the despicable manner that he did. I wonder how many other innocent bystanders were assaulted at the protest?

[Sherlock]

My friends,

 

As I have repeatedly stated, I do not represent the Police in any formal capacity herein, therefore it is not possible to provide answers to all of your questions.

 

I did not say this WAS why he was wearing the facemask. I postulated a theoretical explanation, based on knowledge and experience. In any public order in which I have been deployed, I have chosen to wear the mask. Each officer is responsible for making an individual assessment of the risk they may be facing during their appointed duties, and must take into account what they may reasonably expect to face, based on intelligence and information gathered, and experience. To choose not to wear such gear would render officer liable for any injury resulting from their choice. Like the officer who chooses not to wear his vest, then cries, "Foul!" when stabbed.

 

I would not make any assumption as to his motives in wearing his mask, nor should any other, without evidence to the ontrary. I can, however, speak from my own experience. It is a little late, should petrol bombs be used (and they have in the past), to say, "Hang on a tick, I forgot to put on my flame retardant headgear. Do you mind awfully njot throwing that petrol-filled bottle until I drop my baton and shield, doff my helmet and don my mask? There's a good chap, fire away!"

 

Insofar as statistics are concerned, there are other areas of this Force, which are also "low reported crime areas", and yet the detection rate here is higher.

 

As to the mention of statistics, I am well aware of Master Disraeli's quote on their useage, and have a favourite quote of my own, when it comes to thiose wise souls, who spend their time employing the 20/20 vision afforded by hindsight. It is attributed to that splendid fellow, Theodore Franklin Roosevelt, and may be foudnd by entering his name and "critics" on Google. It speaks far more eleoquently for my stance on such matters than I ever could.

 

The bottom line should be, where a Police Officer breaks the law and the trust of those we serve, they should reasonably expect to face justice. Their should, in my opinion, be no argument on this point, although each circumstance should be evaluated accordingly, as with every other crime.

 

(Low crime? Tell that to the victims of serious crime whom my colleagues and I deal with daily. And even "stupid" criminals require cases to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are so confident you know who they all are, perhaps you could share some knowledge with us, purely in the interests of your fellow islanders - who are after all, the victims of such folk?).

 

Your humble servant.

[crofter]

In such circumstances, each officer bears a unique designation by which they may be identified, other than epaulettes. This was the case with each officer involved in the protests.

 

Can you elaborate?

 

I do not represent the Police in any formal capacity herein, therefore it is not possible to provide answers to all of your questions.

 

So would I be correct to infer that there is a "secret" method by which police officers can identify each other, although they are unidentifiable to ordinary members of the public?

 

As previously stated, any such officer is always identifiable to another, regardless of headgear or apparel,

[Ghostrider]

The bottom line should be, where a Police Officer breaks the law and the trust of those we serve, they should reasonably expect to face justice. Their should, in my opinion, be no argument on this point, although each circumstance should be evaluated accordingly, as with every other crime.

 

I agree entirely, although I would add that as well as for breaking the law, misconduct while on duty which compromises the job they are supposed to be doing should also be included.

 

Unfortunately, from the outside looking in, the impression gained is that regardless of what actually does happen behind closed doors, that as far as the public is aware, such things are let slip or swept under the carpet in a fudge at best.

 

Until and unless an independent body is established for the purpose of overseeing, and where appropriate handing matters of alleged misconduct by individual officiers, and a far greater transparency is established which allows the public to know that justice is being done, and is seen to be done, the situation cannot change.

 

As has been said many many times the Police policing themselves is a joke, the role of the Police in society is such that trust and belief in them can only be maintained if either nothing ever happens that brings an accusatory finger or suspicion of anything untoward in their direction. Or if they prove themselves openly and transparently vindicated of the allegations, or a guilty party is openly and transparently seen to be dealt with as appropriate.

 

(Low crime? Tell that to the victims of serious crime whom my colleagues and I deal with daily. And even "stupid" criminals require cases to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If you are so confident you know who they all are, perhaps you could share some knowledge with us, purely in the interests of your fellow islanders - who are after all, the victims of such folk?).

 

Sorry, but based on my past experiences of the Police, if I had knowledge, they'd be the last I'd plan to share it with, and if I am a victim of crime, even if it is a serious one, such as my attempted or successful murder, I would very much prefer no Police involvement whatsoever. Put bluntly, I simply do not trust and believe that any information will be appropriately used, nor do I believe the positives of having a Police presence in any situation involving myself outweighs the negatives.

 

At least I, and those who think like me make the Police's lot an easier one too, regardless of whatever we may be a victim of, no report/complaint is ever made that has to be investigated/followed up.

[paulb]

Its obvious if you have them controlled. you then have the time if you wish to check each person for id ect. its a lot easier catching the thugs there and then.

It was well known that there was going to be violence in that area. Why would there be innocent members of the public there.

 

I know its not popular to say this but if the police had not controlled this group what damage would have been done. When the police held back in some riots in the 1980s people died. As at peterloo if you don't want to get hurt don't be there. Yes we all have the right to do what we want but that was within the law. Again look at some of the other rioting that has happened in the past. all in all i think the police did a great job.

 

As i was living very close to the riots in burnley i did not decide to have a stroll through rampaging groups of thugs. If you could have seen the damage done to both personal and commercial property you would not want any mob running about.

 

Shetlanders are very lucky that your not faced with the levels of violence faced by communities in the south. Riot control has improved and i would say that the containment of trouble causers is better than having miles of serious criminal damage.

[paulb]

Ghostrider they are policed by the independent police complaints department. they are not the police.

[Sherlock]

My friend,

 

I am not here in an official capacity, so I would rather not answer your question, other than to say that, were you to examine the apparel of any officer engaged in such a duty, you might ascertain the method of identification (other than, of course, our radios and Dick Tracy decoder rings ).

 

Master Rider,

To address a previous point of yours where you made reference to "hiding behind the Human Rights Act, I would, therefore, surmise that - in your world, at least, Police are not human? Or is it that we are not to have the same rights as you, or your neighbour? An interesting land you would have us live in, where thousands daily "hide behind" such rights, while you would deny it, willy-nilly, to whomsoever had raised your displeasure that day.

 

As for references to Master Stagg, et al, these breaches of trust (and law) are recorded history. Were I, or any of my colleagues, to have been involved in any of these incidents, I would better understand your point. There are hundreds of thousands of crimes and offences reported nationally, on an annual basis. That you would raise these few travesties - while distirbing as individial case studies - as evidence that the entire system of policing is inherently flawed or corrupt, makes no sense to me whatsoever.

 

Many people harbour an innate fear of the police. For a great number, I believe that - whether we realise it or not - this begins in childhood, when our mothers threaten us that "the policeman will take you away if you are naughty". The very ones we should trust and turn to for help, become fear figures. While there will always be those few, who willingly fulfil this role (I, myself, know them not, and would not tolerate such boorish behaviour), the mass perception - fuelled by reports of gross misconduct or injustice - has served to help the process along. Whatever the reasons, some amount of fear or apprehension is felt when the marked vehicle appears in the rear view mirror - even where we are committing no offence - or the officers arrive on the doorstep. And we hate, resent or mistrust that which we fear.

 

Masters Gilbert & Sullivan, never a truer word was spoken!

 

Your humble servant.